Lipinski weathers Tea Party activists

Advocates of health care reform don't like the Tea Party activists who have been loud and obnoxious when members of Congress have held public meetings.

The pro-health care reform people shot video of a recent town hall meeting by U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski where Tea Party activists heckled a woman telling the story of her pregnant daughter-in-law dying after being denied the care she needed because she was uninsured.

h/t Jeff Wegerson (Prairie State Blue)

I would prefer the United States enact health care reform based on a deliberative discussion of what's wrong with the current system and how we can make it better.

But the Republican Party seeks to defeat any health care legislation because it perceives that the GOP will do better in the 2010 elections if they can say the Democrats have not accomplished anything on the Democrats top legislative priority.

Generally Americans want health care reform. And generally they want something similar to what the Democrats are proposing or something more radical, like single-payer health care. Since the Tea Party activists don't have the people on their side and they don't have good arguments for maintaining the status quo they yell louder, make extreme claims and are generally obnoxious.

does Davis wonder, "Could I have been a contender?"

A source who had a conversation with Mayor Richard M. Daley said Daley is annoyed at Rep. Danny K. Davis. Daley claimed strings were pulled to get Davis on the House Ways and Means Committee. The committee is considered quite powerful because of the wide portfolio which includes taxation, Social Security unemployment and Medicare.

So, Davis is kinda a ungrateful schmuck if he walks away from the House Ways and Means Committee to run for President of the Cook County Board, right?

How's the situation look from Davis' perspective?

Davis is aware that he's served on committees of low import. The most important committee project Davis got was beating back Republican attempts to undercount Blacks, immigrants and poor people in the 2000 Census. And that wasn't the kind of “bring home the bacon” project that makes him a superstar with constituents.

I heard one story... and it was just a story, not an interview, so I'm a little sketchy on the details... A guy who claimed to be in the car with Davis and Dick Gephardt, who then led the House Democrats, claimed that Davis was promised improved committee assignments after the next election. Gephardt never delivered.

From the perspective of Democratic leadership, they don't like to give plum committee assignments to members who represent heavily Democratic districts. The theory is that the best committee assignments should go to members who are vulnerable to being defeated by Republicans. So, in theory, Melissa Bean, Debbie Halvorson and Bill Foster are more likely to get plum committee assignments than Mike Quigley, Jan Schakowsky and Dan Lipinski.

However, Lipinski did get a plum assignment from the beginning, the Transportation Committee. His father Bill Lipinski was chair of that committee.

If I may speculate, Davis probably sees the Ways and Means placement like this. Davis figures if Daley could get Davis the Ways and Means assignment now (and Dan Lipinski the Transportation Committee from the beginning), Daley was probably pulling strings to keep Davis from getting better committee assignments earlier in his career.

Now that Davis is pushing 70—and impotent to challenge Daley for Mayor—he gets a plum assignment. Gee thanks.

If Davis got a better committee assignment from the beginning, would this have elevated his profile? Could he have run for Mayor of Chicago? Did Daley make sure Davis got crap assignments to keep Davis down?

I expect every time someone reminds Davis of how good he has it on the Ways and Means Committee, he thinks about how Daley in a conspiracy aided by “White” Democrats in Congress—people Davis trusted, like Gephardt—kept Davis in shit jobs for over a decade.

From Davis' perspective he played the game by the rules and he got screwed. He was weak and ineffective in Congress because “White” people stacked the deck to keep him weak and ineffective. He trusted the Democratic leadership and they pretty much lied to him and screwed him. So he's not in the mood to be a party loyalist as one of the most junior people on an important committee.

Bank of America screws 200 Chicago UEW members

What would you do if your employer closed shop without fulfilling his/her obligations under your contract?

Two hundred workers of Republic Windows and Doors faced this question Friday. See Associated Press (Rupa Shenoy), h/t Gapers Block (Rasmin Canon).

Gapers Block:

The United Electrical Workers at Republic Windows and Doors were notified on Wednesday that as of Friday, they were jobless. No severance. No vacation pay-out, as per their union contract. Nothing. Why? Because the business had plunged into dissolution, and Bank of America was instructing them not to honor their obligations.

Bank of America? Let me tell you my last interaction with B of A. My employer used Bank of America. I was in a hurry to cash my paycheck. I went to a local B of A branch. They wanted $5 to cash a check drawn on their bank.

I contacted Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-IL03), my representative in Congress. I wanted Lipinski to request a letter from the B of A CEO to explain how it's legal for Bank of America to charge a fee to cash a check on their bank.

Lipinski never responded to my request.

But back to the Republic Windows and Doors employees. Hopefully, they get some justice.

It seems unreasonable that U.S. law prioritizes debt to banks over obligations to employees, like paying for accrued vacation days.

A bank has mechanisms (and expertise) to track if a debtor is getting in trouble and can make decisions accordingly. Employees don't have any equivalent way to get information about the financial health of their employers.

Unless the United States changes the law that employers of over a dozen people need to make all their financial records available to employees, it seems obligations to employees should be prioritized over debt to banks.

Proviso has made a national top twenty list!

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) (organization website) has named Congressman Dan Lipinski as one of the twenty most corrupt members of Congress in 2008 (write-up). Lipinski represents the following Proviso communities: Brookfield, LaGrange Park, North Riverside and the southern portions of Forest Park and Westchester.

Rep. Dan Lipinski is a second-term member of Congress representing Illinois’ 3rd congressional district. Rep. Lipinski’s ethics issues stem from the outside employment of a top Washington D.C. congressional aide.

Jerome R. Hurckes

In January 2005, after serving as district director for former Rep. William Lipinski, Jerome “Jerry” Hurckes became chief of staff in the district office of Rep. Dan Lipinski, who replaced his father.

Since 1999, Mr. Hurckes has served as an elected member of the Village of Oak Lawn Board of Trustees. In that capacity he ran a state campaign account called Friends of Jerry Hurckes. Both former Rep. William Lipinski’s state PAC and the Dan Lipinski for Congress Committee have donated to Friends of Jerry Hurckes. Rep. Dan Lipinski serves on the House Transportation Committee, and companies with business in front of the committee, have donated to Mr. Hurckes’ campaign committee.

In his capacity as a local elected official, Mr. Hurckes has claimed responsibility for bringing federal funds to Oak Lawn. During an Oak Lawn board meeting in March 2008, Mr. Hurckes claimed that the village did not need to hire a lobbyist because he served as a de facto lobbyist. Mr. Hurckes said that he was "responsible for helping secure over $4 million for the Village of Oak Lawn ... responsible for helping obtain the funding for the Oak Lawn Children Museum ... [and] responsible for funding for emergency light systems," but Mr. Hurckes is not a registered federal lobbyist.

Given that Mr. Hurckes is the most highly paid staff member in Rep. Lipinski’s office, that his position is a full-time job and is generally considered a “senior staff” position, the fact that Mr. Hurckes’ salary is just under the figure that would make him “senior staff” suggests that Rep. Lipinski is paying Mr. Hurckes a salary under this limit precisely so that he can earn a substantial outside income. As a result, the House Ethics committee ought to investigate whether Rep. Lipinski and Mr. Hurckes are attempting to end-run the outside income restrictions.

By serving as a member of the Village of Oak Lawn Board of Trustees and admitting that he has been the Board’s “defacto lobbyist,” Mr. Hurckes is violating the prohibition against congressional staff serving as lobbyists. Mr. Hurckes also likely violated the prohibition against using House resources to perform the duties of his local office. And, by telling the Board of Oak Lawn that it did not need to hire a lobbyist because he was handling the city’s congressional issues and by stating that he had helped secure funding for projects in Oak Lawn, Mr. Hurckes clearly used his position in the House to provide special treatment to his constituents and encouraged the notion that his constituents would receive preferential treatment from Rep. Lipinski’s congressional office. Finally, by accepting money for his local electoral campaign from companies with interests before Rep. Lipinski, Mr. Hurckes is using his position as a congressional staff member to accept benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of official duties in violation of House rules.

Lipinski has two opponents on the ballot in November: Michael Hawkins (Republican) and Jerome Pohlen (Green).

Jerry Hurckes is not a nice person.

LWV hosts candidate forum for IL-03

All four Democratic candidates for Illinois' Third Congressional District appeared Sunday afternoon at a League of Women Voters forum at Lyons Township High School in LaGrange. The small to medium-sized meeting room had an overflow crowd, which seemed to be mostly affluent, “White” suburbanites with relatively few seniors.

The organizers seated Mark Pera (Western Springs) on the left (from the audiences perspective), Jerry Bennett (Palos Hills), Jim Capparelli (Chicago) and Dan Lipinski (Western Springs) on the right. The moderator had the candidates answer questions in a random order.

Lipinski started awkwardly. He arrived late and then started by complaining he hadn't gotten the questions in advance like the other candidates. The organizers wanted candidates to address health care and immigration in their five-minute opening statements. Lipinski asked to give his opening statement last so he could prepare while the others spoke. The moderator didn't respond to the request for a few seconds. Pera was scheduled in the fourth spot and offered it to Lipinski; Lipinski thanked Pera for making the exchange.

Capparelli emphasized his “working class background” and his military experience. He's a combat veteran (Grenada) and a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserves. Capparelli favored forcing employers to provide health insurance coverage. Lipinski also shared this opinion, but wanted a lower employee threshold (20 vs. 50 employees).

Pera gave his background on the Lyons Township school board and working as an assistant state's attorney (environmental crimes, public utility regulation). He emphasized the contrast between him and Lipinski on abortion rights, the Iraq War and warrantless wiretapping. Pera favors abortion rights and capping funding for the war to force the President to withdraw. He's critical of President Bush asserting a right to surveil U.S. citizens without a warrant. On health care Pera expressed optimism the Democrats would win the presidency and said, “We are going to get universal health care. I will support it.”

Bennett grew-up in Chicago in a large Irish family. He was elected mayor of Palos Hills at age 30. He's been mayor 27 years and has been a leader in coordinating mayors on municipal issues. He made a point of how the Iraq War is diverting funding from spending for local projects to spending overseas. Bennett said:

As local officials, as local mayors, we are already on the cutting edge. Whether it has to do with issues of environment or, again, economic development, creating jobs with good health care benefits. We have been in the trenches doing that. We haven't waited for Washington. We have taken the initiative locally to solve those kind of problems. And I believe as the Congressman I can bring that experience to Washington and bring back to this metro region, and specifically this district, the type of federal fundings and assistance that we need. And we need it desperately. Washington over the last few years has taken a step away under the this administration. This Bush administration has lost where local government [fits into the economic picture] and the ability of local government to be the economic engine in this country. In fact, 79% of the Gross National Product in this country is generated by cities. We need to reestablish that federal-city partnership.

Lipinski identified himself as a former engineer, in addition to being a former educator. (He was a political science professor.) Lipinski claimed to have done things to help families, the economy, the environment, seniors and veterans. “I have delivered results for the people of the Third District.”
Lipinski:

Unfortunately today middle class families are being increasingly squeezed by higher costs, higher property taxes and stagnant wages. That's why I helped pass a bill that protects 82,000 families in the Third District from being hit by the AMT this year.

Bennett and Capparelli espoused a conventional view of immigration. The federal government should do more to keep undocumented aliens out. There should be some path to citizenship for immigrants already here. Employers should be held accountable for hiring illegal workers. And undocumented immigrants should receive basic legal protections. Bennett specifically said he supports the Kyl-Gutierrez bill. Pera did not address the immigration issue even though the LWV asked all candidates to speak to the issue in their opening statements. Lipinski said, “We cannot allow those who are here illegally to get a leg up on becoming citizens.” [UPDATE: Pera did address immigration. I either missed recording it or missed apprehending it when I was listening to the recording. Pera said,

Immigration: I hope you all saw the article in The Doings, the endorsement in The Doings, the strong endorsement. We had a long conversation at The Doings about immigration. It's set forth in the pamphlet that you've probably got, but the fact of the matter is we need to secure the borders, we need to secure the ports. We need to crack down on employers who are taking advantage of the undocumented, but we have to do it in a humane way and we have to find a path to citizenship for those that are already here. We can't have a situation where a woman who is raped, or is the victim of domestic violence is afraid to go to the police.

Social Security:

• “Social Security is not in jeopardy,” Lipinski. “We cannot use Social Security to pay for our yearly deficits.”
• Capparelli favors removing cap for Social Security withholdings.
• Pera discussed the possibility that Baby Boomers would work past retirement which would cause more people to continue to pay into the system and delay drawing out.
• Bennett expressed reservations about putting the money in the stock market.

NCLB (“No Child Left Behind” Act):

• Lipinski favored more fed funding for local districts and wants to change how AYP is measured.
• Bennett favored the federal government investing in capital improvement of schools.
• Capparelli expressed his support for funding federal mandates.
• Pera said,

It is and is going to be the largest unfunded mandate from the federal government, the largest back door property tax increase, that any of us are going to see on our property tax bills as school systems attempt to meet the requirements of the law. The fact of the matter is that by 2014 every school in this country will be run by the federal government, which is something that none of us want to see happen. I haven't heard yet anyone say really what they will do in regard to this law. But it's coming up for reauthorization. And if it can't be substantially corrected then I would not vote to reauthorize it. Sure, it's a catchy sounding name. But it hasn't accomplished what it's intended to do. Without adequate federal funding to meet the goals then I don't think it should be reauthorized.

Energy, fossil fuels:

• Bennett supported bio-fuels and increasing corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. “We need to get away from Middle Eastern oil and all foreign oil. And that can be done by alternatives in this country.” He went on to mention local government's role in reducing congestion and creating green cities.
• Lipinski:

Well, I've been a leader in Congress in pushing legislation to do this. I helped to write the new energy law that just passed that increases fuel efficiency standards for cars. I helped write the law, to help Hydrogen to become a possible replacement for gasoline. I fought for--we passed in the House, the Senate took it out--a part of the energy bill that would tax energy companies $22 billion so that money woud go to alternative fuel research. I strongly support alternative fuel. I think we need to do that.... Some people want to open up places in the United States like Artic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore drilling. I have said no, and I have voted against doing that. We cannot threaten our environment, but we do need to get away from our dependence on foreign oil.

After Pera finished, Lipinski asked, “Do we have an opportunity to respond?” The moderator answered, “No, sir. Not at this point.... [You can later] if you choose to return to a prior question.”

• Capparelli mentioned that France gets much of its electrical power from nuclear and that the U.S. Navy operates nuclear reactors on submarines. He went on to say:

I feel very comfortable with nuclear energy as a way to reduce our foreign consumption of oil. I am for the drilling of resources off the coast. It doesn't mean their will be a natural catastrophe. But I'll tell you what: the working men and women of the Third Congressional District don't want to pay $200 to fill up their car.

Stem cell research:

• Pera, supports embryonic stem cell research. “Congressman Lipinski was one of fourteen Democrats to uphold George Bush's veto of the stem cell research bill.”
• Bennett:

I guess I also find it difficult for Congressman Lipinski, who brags about being the vice chairman of the science committee in Congress, that [he] would take a position against an important research in stem cells.

• Lipinski:

I do not support embryonic stem cell research. I have been a leader in getting funding for other types of stem cell research. We have seen the great advances that have been made in that regard. I'm a diabetic. People talk about people with diabetes maybe some of the first to be cured. I strongly support--y'know I'm an engineer, scientist--I strongly support science. I do not support tax payer funding going to embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research is legal in this country and it is going on.

Going back, check the record on oil. Check the record how I voted for the amendment to take drilling out of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge out of the energy bill a couple years ago. Check the record on how I voted three times this year to tax oil companies. Or check the record. I have received no money whatsoever from oil companies. Just because you say something, put something down on paper and send it out to people doesn't mean it's true.

• Capparelli opposes embryonic stem cell research as “a question of faith” and identified himself as a “pro life” candidate.

I'm going to try to write-up the other questions later today, but I did want to get something posted sooner rather than later.

After the Democrats spoke, Art Jones (R-Chicago) spoke. I was walking out of the room and he railed against the federal government, starting with the Iraq War. He began at a borderline yell and escalated the volume and intensity as he spoke. You can read more on Jones in this Proviso Probe entry.

To disclose fully, I did place a Mark Pera sign in the window this weekend, although I will probably vote for Jerry Pohlen, the Green Party candidate, in the general election.

nominating petition objections, IL-03

According to the Illinois State Board of Elections website, frequent candidate Ray Wardingley has withdrawn his candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives in IL-03, the district currently represented by Dan Lipinski (D-Western Springs).

Objections have been filed to the following candidates' nominating petitions in this race: Lipinski and both Green candidates Jerome Pohlen (Berwyn) and Richard Mayers (Berwyn).

Mayers filed the objections against Lipinski and Pohlen. Rita Bogolub and Kevin O'Connor filed the objections against Mayers. O'Connor and Bogolub are both Green candidates. O'Connor, of Westchester, is running for state representative against Rep. Bob Biggins (R) and to be the Green Committeeman of Proviso Township. Bogolub, of Berwyn, is running for a seat on the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District board.

Lipinski chief of staff tells citizen journalist to "talk to the hand"

On Friday, Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-Western Springs) hosted his annual senior fair at a recreation center in Berwyn. The fair brought together a number of government agencies and some businesses who provide services for seniors. Lipinski took three or so questions from the audience, but largely constituents got access to Lipinski by approaching him and talking to him.

This woman* asked Lipinski a question about his vote for the Bush-supported FISA bill in July. Wikipedia has background on the July vote.

Rita Maniotis is an activist with Near West Citizens for Peace and Justice and a Green Party candidate for state representative. Maniotis was video recording Lipinski at the senior fair.

Jerry Hurckes, Lipinski's chief of staff, was trying to keep Maniotis from getting good footage of Lipinski.

In the video clip you can see Hurckes using his hand to block Maniotis' view of Lipinski. When I saw Hurckes doing this, I turned my camera on and began filming. The clearest view of Hurckes harassing Maniotis is at about 15-17 seconds into the view I posted. Assuming it took me a few seconds to get my camera set up, Hurckes was behaving like a poorly socialized third grader for 20-30 seconds before Lipinski told him to behave.

I owe a huge thanks to Steve Backman of Citizens United in Forest Park for help making this video tape. He loaned me the camera and transfered it to a digital format that could be posted on You Tube.

• What is Hurckes thinking when he is harassing Maniotis?
• What should people infer about Lipinski based on Hurckes' behavior?
• Should Lipinski fire Hurckes over this incident?

BTW, show some love to Proviso Probe advertisers. If you are buying or selling property, contact Patrick Doolin.











Also, the candidates running against Lipinski in the Democratic primary are: Jerry Bennett, Jim Capperelli and Mark Pera. Jerry Pohlen of Berwyn is circulating nominating petitions to run for the seat as a Green Party candidate.

*I assumed she was with Near West Citizens for Peace and Justice, but Rita Maniotis didn't know her name. Maniotis is the secretary for Near West Citizens for Peace and Justice. [UPDATE: EK wrote down the woman's name as "Loretta Luizzi". I will check to verify this.]

[UPDATE: In a May 7, 2007 article in Daily Southtown, two Hurckes political rivals expressed suspicion that Hurckes used a village inspector to retaliate against and individual who challenged Hurckes in the village elections. On election night Hurckes made a quote that foreshadowed Hurckes getting even.

"If you battle the king, you better kill him, or he's going to come back and haunt you," Hurckes said on Election Day as he ribbed the rival Unity Party and alluded to a challenge for the mayoral seat in 2009.

[Suspicion about Hurckes using the village to retaliate against his political opponent was probably re-enforced by a March 4, 2007 Kristen McQueary column (Daily Southtown) that tells the story of Hurckes calling the police to see how they handled a flimsy complaint against his opponent about improperly shoveling snow.]

Lipinski Iraq forum at Summit American Legion hall

Last Thursday night I attended a forum for Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL03) to talk to veterans at the Summit American Legion hall. Lipinski's website advertised that the subject would be the Iraq occupation, but seemed it drifted off into various veterans issues.

The event started with Lipinski giving the Distinguished Service Cross to the family of some GI killed in the Pacific in 1943. The Distinguish Service Cross is a big deal. It's the award one step down from the Medal of Honor. From Wikipedia, since Vietnam, as of early 2007, six Distinguished Service Crosses have been awarded.

I was struck be how awkward Lipinski was giving the award to the family. He couldn't make up his mind if the award was from him (it wasn't) or from Congress or the country. As Jim Capperelli, who is running against Lipinski, noted later, it's painful to watch Lipinski speak.

I also felt that the evidence justifying the Distinguish Service Cross seemed a bit thin. The guy was wounded. He was later found dead. Around him were a bunch of dead Japanese (number vague). So the inference was that he killed a bunch of Japanese by himself.

I suspected that the family had pushed for this award. And if some family wants a military decoration to commemorate their loved one, I'm OK with that. I don't like using flimsy evidence or inflating the award, but it doesn't seem like there's great harm in it.

Later I found out that U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL10) was also handing out military medals for ancient events at one of his local forums. I suspect that this is a PR offensive by the Bush administration and the U.S. military, not driven by the awardees and their families.

There were a couple questions asked about depleted uranium exposure. Bob Gronko is a member of Veterans for Peace, a friend and and works in an organization that provides services to veterans. Gronko said this of the forum:

I asked Congressman Lipinski what he would do to protect our brethren in service from DU (depleted uranium), if they would be tested for DU exposure upon return, and if they would be treated by the VA if exposed.

He answered in vague terms about supporting our troops and treating them for PTSD and TBI upon return. He apparently doesn't know what DU is or intentionally evaded the question for other reasons.

My impression is: He is not interested in protecting and supporting our troops, only in sounding like he does without doing any research - even when provided. He needs to be replaced by someone veterans can trust.

A Near West Citizen For Peace and Justice pointed out to him that a film detailing the dangers of DU was delivered to his office. He merely acknowledged the comment.

I raised multiple issues about the Iraq War and occupation. Realizing this is not verbatim this is what I said/asked:

1. There should be a forum on Iraq for all constituents, not just veterans.
2. Knowing what we know now, should the United States have invaded Iraq.
3. From the last 100 years is there a precedent for a foreign military defeating an insurgency that survived the first 4 1/2 years?
4. If the insurgents always win these conflicts, what makes you feel confident the U.S. military is going to defy historical precedent?

Lipinski said that he was hosting a general forum. I think he referred to a Berwyn event. On his web site (scroll down) that event is for senior citizens.

Lipinski made an unequivocal statement the United States should not have invaded Iraq. Lipinski's father voted against authorizing the war. As Yoda (Prairie State Blue) reminded people recently, then-Rep. Rod Blagojevich was the only Illinois Democrat who voted to authorize Bush to invade Iraq.

Lipinski said that he didn't think historical precedents applied to the U.S. military in Iraq because the U.S. military isn't there as an imperial power. I interjected with the follow-up question, "How do you think the Iraqis see the situation?" Lipinski didn't answer it.

Generally, Lipinski said a few things.

1. He will vote to fund the troops as long as they are in harms way.
2. He is for getting U.S. troops out of Iraq.
3. But the troops shouldn't leave now or leave too quickly.
4. The troops may (will probably) be in Iraq for as long as U.S. troops stayed in Germany or Korea.

Lipinski obviously wants credit for wanting U.S. troops--especially the loved ones of constituents--to be home. But he's not going to force the issue by withholding funds. And he's opposed to leaving if it will possibly result in bad consequences. And he's basically resigned to giving the President a blank check.

The Korea and Germany analogies are flawed because once the hot war was over in both of those theaters things calmed down and the chief threat was motor vehicles accidents and doing stupid stuff while intoxicated.

After asking my questions, I did speak to Capperelli. He has a fairly detailed knowledge of military history. He pointed to a few examples of defeating long-term insurgencies, including in Peru, South Africa and Malaysia. If you want to discuss it in the comments, I'll explain why I don't think those examples apply. However, I was impressed with Capperelli's knowledge, even if I disagree with him on the issue of Iraq.

There were a couple women at the forum who were hot about the immigration issue.

One woman gave the impression that she took vacation to go check on the progress of the 700-mile fence that is supposed to be built along the U.S. border with Mexico.

The other woman--I didn't hear this, but a couple people recounted it to me--had a granddaughter who tested positive for TB. She then talked for a couple minutes, which is when I stopped paying attention. Ultimately, she got around to blaming her Mexican daughter-in-law for exposing her granddaughter to TB. This is a meme being pushed by Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh and other anti-immigration activists: immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, increase the spread of serious diseases, like TB. Dobbs has an obsession with leprosy (as Lisa Simpson reminds us they are trying to move to the term "Hansen's disease"), even though his "facts" have been debunked. See Media Matters.

The one time when Lipinski seemed fired-up and angry with someone was when discussing the 700-mile fence. Lipinski was mad at President George W. Bush about not spending the money authorized to build the fence. Unlike the disloyal Joe Lieberman, Lipinski never criticized any Democrats or spoke disrespectfully of more liberal positions on issues.

But I got the impression that Lipinski was most comfortable speaking to constituents who think immigration is the top issue facing the United States (and that there should be less immigration).

I was impressed with Jerome Pohlen's campaign. Pohlen is the Green Party candidate in IL-03. Pohlen's campaign had someone there video taping Lipinski's performance.

There was also a representative from Mark Pera's campaign, but I only found out after the forum when he emailed me that he was there.

what do you think of Rep. Dan Lipinski's performance on Chicago Tonight?

I don't want to bias the responses by asking a leading question, but what do you think of how U.S. Dan Lipinski (D-IL03) speaks and carries himself in this interview?

[UPDATE: Mark Pera, president of the board of ed for Lyons Township High School, is running against Lipinski in the Democratic primary. You can see him grovel for campaign contributions at Prairie State Blue. Pera says that last week he was in the top five candidates in the country on Act Blue, a site for raising money for Democratic candidates. This is impressive because the only candidates ahead of him were running for POTUS or U.S. Senate.]

[One can make a strong case that LT is the best run high school in the area based on producing the most National Merit Scholar semifinalists and costing less that "we heart property taxes" Oak Park.]

[The other candidates running would probably also like your money before September 20, so you might want to visit their websites too. Jerry Bennett, Jim Capparelli and Dan Lipinski. And Jerome Poehlen is running as a Green Party candidate.]

another Lipinski challenger

At the Rep. Dan Lipinski forum at the Argo-Summit American Legion Post I met Jim Capperelli, a Democrat challenging Lipinski in the February 5, 2008 primary.

Reading on Walden Blog quotes a Southwest New-Herald article by Dermot Connolly.

About 250 people turned out to hear Capparelli make his official declaration of candidacy at a party held last Thursday evening at the Argo-Summit American Legion Post, 6050 S. Harlem Ave.

Capperelli is an attorney and Army veteran of the Panama invasion.

[UPDATE: Looks like Palos Hills Mayor Jerry Bennett is running too.]

Lipinski wants to talk to veterans about the Iraq occupation

See Congressman Dan Lipinski's website (scroll down):

Congressman Lipinski invites all veterans of the Third Congressional District to join him on Thursday September 13th at 7:00 p.m. at the Argo-Summit American Legion Post #735 in Summit for a Veterans Town Hall. 6050 S Harlem Ave., Summit

The district includes southern Proviso Township, including Brookfield, La Grange Park and southern Forest Park and Westchester.

Mark Pera criticizes Lipinski for supporting Bush

Mark Pera is challenging Rep. Dan Lipinski (IL-03) in the Dem Primary. The district includes southern Proviso Township (south Forest Park, Brookfield, North Riverside, La Grange Park and southern Westchester).

Pera criticized Lipinski for voting with the Bush administration on legislation pertaining to the FISA court. The Bush administration has been violating the law pertaining to surveillance of U.S. citizens. It has never explained to what extent it is violating the law.

Bush critics who are especially suspicious of government power suspect the Bush administration has avoided explaining the details of how it has violated the law because it has engaged in surveillance of journalists and political critics and opponents.

EricV (Prairie State Blue) has the Pera press release.

Gerald Bennett, Mayor of Palos Hills, has also begun a campaign for the seat. See EricV (Prairie State Blue). Count me among those suspicious that Lipinski's allies have encouraged or enticed Bennett to run to split the opposition vote.

Two Congressional candidates in news

Mark Pera has created a web site and filed FEC paperwork to run against Congressman Dan Lipinski in the Democratic Primary. (h/t scorekeeper Prairie State Blue.) The district includes most of southern Proviso Township, including southern Forest Park, southern Westchester, Brookfield and La Grange Park.

Huffington Post (Robert Naiman) covers the race from the point of view of Democrats from Democrat districts who have been opposed to expeditiously withdrawing from Iraq.

Pera was president of the Lyons Township High School board for six years. And he ran for state representative in 1996.

Also, Alderman Ricardo Munoz is a candidate for the Fourth Congressional District, which includes Stone Park and part of Melrose Park. It's currently represented by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Chicago), who has announced he is retiring at the end of this term.

Yesterday (Wednesday) Munoz's father was charged with manufacturing documents for undocumented workers. See Sun-Times (Natasha Korecki & Fran Spielman). The exculpatory part of the story is that Munoz has been estranged from his father for 16 years.

Ald. Munoz said he has been estranged from his father since his parents divorced nearly 16 years ago.

"We talk maybe once or twice a year," he said. "I continue being his son. I'm going to do what I can to help him. . . . It's been difficult, but he's still my dad."

GOV, Proviso Reps oppose troop escalation in Iraq

Proviso Township is represented by four members of the House of Representatives: Rep. Danny K. Davis, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, Rep. Luis Gutierrez and Rep. Dan Lipinski. All are Democrats.

This week the House of Representatives debated a resolution expressing disagreement with President Bush's plan to escalate the level of troops in Iraq.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That—
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Earlier Proviso Probe covered Davis' statement. All Proviso representatives voted for the resolution, thereby going on record as opposing the escalation.

Here's what the other representatives had to say:

Lipinski:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution and in support of a new policy in Iraq. Up until this point, the Bush administration's Iraq policy over the last 3 1/2 years appears to be one of America's worst foreign policy blunders. More than 3,100 of our brave men and women in uniform have been killed and more than 24,000 have been wounded, many very seriously, and hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent and in some cases wasted. This has resulted from the tactical mistakes, errors in judgment and other major missteps by the Bush administration.

It is painfully clear that a change in strategy in Iraq is needed now. We need a plan for bringing stability to Iraq and bringing our troops home. Unfortunately, the President's plan to add over 20,000 additional troops does not provide this, and, therefore, I must support this resolution.

I see three main flaws in the President's plan.

First, the administration has not provided convincing evidence that this surge will succeed after many similar plans have failed. After almost 4 years in Iraq, the American people are asking, why should we have faith in this plan and place more troops in harm's way?

Second, by failing to provide clear benchmarks for success or a time frame by which we can expect the surge to yield positive results, the President's plan appears to commit our country to a ``stay the course'' strategy with no clear end in sight. Aid should be tied to a deadline for progress by the Iraqi Government.

Third, and most importantly, the President continues to place too much emphasis on a military solution, when it is clear that force alone will not solve this crisis. Solutions must support broad international engagement to promote stability and reconstruction in Iraq and must address political, economic and religious issues.

Because of the need for such a plan, earlier this year I laid out a set of recommendations, and this week I introduced H.Res. 152 based on these. My proposal consists of three core recommendations.

First, encourage achievement of important goals and national reconciliation, security and governance by arranging a peace conference for Iraq's ethnic and religious factions, similar to the conference that led to the Dayton Accords. One venue for this would be El Salvador, which has shown a strong commitment to stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq and has gone through its own recent history of a bloody civil war and ensuing reconciliation.

But wherever and however it is done, the political, economic and religious issues must be addressed if peace and security are to be established in Iraq. And it is essential that more pressure be put on the Iraqi Government and all interested parties in Iraq to find and accept real solutions so the American forces can begin withdrawal.

The second recommendation is to seek international cooperation to develop solutions for Iraq. This should include calling an international conference that will work on putting together a peacekeeping force and setting up an international reconstruction program.

Iraq's strategic position in the volatile Middle East, its potential to become a terrorist safe haven, its large supply of oil and the great potential for a humanitarian catastrophe make security in Iraq a critical international issue. It is time for America to engage the nations of the world to encourage them to address this international crisis.

The final recommendation is to require the administration to give Congress detailed reports on the situation in Iraq so that we can make informed decisions regarding funding for reconstruction and deciding when American forces can be redeployed. This new Congress has been vigorously conducting oversight after 3 1/2 years of congressional neglect, but we must have the full cooperation of the administration.

If the recommendations laid out in my resolution are followed, I believe American troops can begin redeployment in 2007, leaving a secure, stable Iraq.

As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stated, ``The search for genuine justice and peace in Iraq requires moral urgency, substantive dialogue and new direction.'' Unfortunately, the President does not give us this. That is why his plan is discouraging to many Americans who are weary of this war.

But no one is wearier than our troops and their families. This past weekend I spoke to a soldier who spent 13 months in Iraq and will likely be returning. He told me that it is important to make sure that we let our troops know that they have our complete support. We cannot let anything in this debate be construed otherwise. If this surge occurs even after we pass this resolution, we must continue to support our troops and pray for them every day, so that by God's grace they can succeed in their mission.

Lipinski represents the southern portion of Proviso Township.

Emanuel:

Mr. Speaker, we gather today to consider a question that is profoundly simple: Do we support the President's plan to further escalate America's involvement in Iraq, or not? After 4 long, painful years in which we have seen so many young lives lost, are we now willing to put even more of our brave heroes in harm's way, or will we acknowledge that the current course is failing, that doubling down on the status quo while hoping for a better result would be foolish.

There are those who oppose this resolution because they say it would hurt the troops' morale. Hurt morale? Our leaders promised them they would be greeted as liberators. Instead, we have put them smack in the middle of a shooing gallery, policing someone else's civil war, backing an Iraqi government that refuses to stand up for itself.

We have sent our soldiers back time and again. We have sent many of them without the life-saving equipment and armor they needed, and now they say this resolution would hurt troop morale? To suggest that more of the same just won't do.

They have done their duty with courage and discipline. Now it is time for Congress to do its duty. They deserve not to be sacrificed in the furtherance of a policy that failed for the last 4 years.

From the beginning, this war has been a saga of miscalculations, mistakes and misjudgments for which America will pay in many ways for years to come. Let us not compound those bad judgments by ratifying another.

The President assures us that this escalation of war is the most promising path to a more peaceful Iraq. For the past 5 years we have accepted the President's assurances on Iraq, only to learn that the facts on the ground belied his aggressive assertions and rosy rhetoric. We accepted his assurances about the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's links to al Qaeda. We authorized a war on that basis, only to learn that much of what we were told simply wasn't true.

Against stern warnings, we accepted his assurances and those of the Vice President that a post-Saddam Iraq would welcome our presence and overcome deeply engrained sectarian differences. It simply wasn't true. We accepted their assurances when they told us General Shinseki was mistaken when he said we needed far more troops to stabilize Iraq than the administration planned, and that the cost of this war would be minimal. It simply wasn't true. We accepted their assurances when they told us the insurgency was in its last throes. It simply wasn't true.

Each of the last three troop surges has been countered with a surge in violence. It is for that reason that a bipartisan group of House Members and the American public oppose the forth troop increase. More troops doing more of the same is not a policy, it is not a strategy, it is not a tactic, it is the status quo plus.

The time is past for accepting this administration's assurances at face value. The human cost of its repeated assurances is too great.

Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago I asked permission to establish a temporary memorial to the fallen in Iraq in Statuary Hall. The leadership at that time refused, so I began posting the pictures of the young soldiers we have lost outside my office. I have watched as that grim line of photos has grown past my doorway to fill the corridor. More than 3,000 dead, more than 20,000 wounded. When I walk by those photos, I see the purpose, I see the pride, and I see the promise in their young faces. They were sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers who will never see their kids grow up.

I ask you, how long must this grim line of photographs grow before we acknowledge that this policy is not working? How many corridors must these memorials fill before we we say, not on my watch? How many more lives must we lose? How many more hearts must be broken?

It is time for this Congress to tell President Bush that his assurances are not enough. This escalation does not mean stability in Iraq, it will mean more loss and more photographs in the corridor.

I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Emanuel represents most of Melrose Park.

Gutierrez:

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution.

Four years ago, President Bush plunged our Nation into a misguided, pre-emptive war with Iraq. I voted against authorizing it then--and I have come to the floor today to affirm my strong opposition to this irresponsible war.

Unfortunately, after 4 years of failed strategies by this administration, the President is now poised to confound his tragic blunder, and ignore the will of the American people, by attempting to increase our presence in Iraq. And that is why this resolution is so important. Because it sends a strong statement. A statement that the vast majority of the country supports. And that is: escalating our presence in Iraq will not lead to success in the region, and more blank checks will not make America more secure.

Madam Speaker, our brave men and women in the military have done all that is asked of them over the course of the last 4 years. They are heroes who represent the finest our country has to offer--and they should be treated accordingly. But, from day one, this administration has spent more time planning its attacks on those who offered legitimate criticisms of the war and its tactics, than it has on planning for a stable and peaceful reconstruction of the region. And the results have been devastating and unworthy of our brave men and women serving in harm's way.

Enough is enough. Troop surges have not worked in the past, and there is no evidence that the same failed policies will work today. In fact, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said in December, ``I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work.''

Yet, this administration continues to ignore the guidance of military experts, the Iraq Study Group, diplomats, decorated war heroes and former senior White House officials of both parties.

And rather than being open to debate and discussion with these experts, this Administration has routinely attacked their character and questioned their patriotism. Many of these individuals have bled on the battlefield. But to this administration, and its swift boat strategists, they are treated merely as political pawns. It is truly shameful.

Because of this Administration's hubris, we have seen troops without proper equipment, without basic body armor, without vehicles equipped to deal with roadside bombs and without the appropriate veteran's services when they return home.

Because of their ignorance, we have seen giant banners saying, Mission Accomplished, when today Iraq has spiraled into a bloody, religious civil war.

Because of their arrogance, we were told that we were going to be treated as liberators, not as occupiers.

And because of their incompetence, we were told that future oil revenues would more than cover the cost of the reconstruction.

They could not have been more wrong. The cost of the war continues to grow at an outrageous rate. To date, we have spent approximately $379 billion on this war, with estimates from some experts saying that the total long-term cost could exceed $1 trillion.

Think about that for a minute: $379 billion spent, more than $8 billion a month. That is enough to fully fund Head Start--100 times over. To give virtually every student in America a computer. Pay for prescription drug coverage for virtually every senior in our Nation. Offer summer jobs to every teen in our country. Put hundreds of thousands of additional police officers on the streets. Provide millions of scholarships to public universities for deserving students. And pay the salaries of millions of public school teachers.

But what do we have to show for that $379 billion--a country plagued with hardened religious sectarian violence.

Madam Speaker, it is time to stop this charade. It is time for the truth. It is time for the administration to really level with the American people.

Resurrecting and rehashing failed policies of the past is not the answer.

Real action is needed. Leadership is needed. Courage is needed. And that is why we are engaged in this debate--to stand up to the deception and the dishonesty.

We are here today to begin to set our strategy back on the right course. To protect our soldiers. And to ensure that we can win the real war on terror.

Madam Speaker, we are here today as patriots because we love our country. We are here because we support our troops. And we are here because we want our troops to be able to come home to their families and loved ones.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important resolution.

Gutierrez represents some of Melrose Park and Stone Park.

What arguments resonate with you? What arguments seem weak?

Davis and Gutierrez voted against the Iraq War Resolution in October, 2002. Emanuel's predecessor, Rod Blagojevich, was one of the 81 Democrats who voted for the resolution (126 Democrats voted "no"). Lipinski's father voted against the Iraq War Resolution.

In the past Emanuel and Dan Lipinski have been more supportive of Bush's Iraq policy than most Democrats.